That I don't doubt as much, and polling has indicated some weakness for working union members who tend to lean Democrat--but the whole "magic tricks" on women reasoning just doesn't make any empirical sense to me.
Keep on playing the women card, GOP: the strongest suit of all the suits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Akin#2012_U.S._Senate_election Women aren't idiots. And enough of them will vote for it to make a difference. God, I hope Trump keeps on talking about women. If the down-ballot association with the GOP becomes toxic for women, we might even see the HoR in play. A Democrat dynasty in the judicial wing that will last generations. A Democrat executive that will undo some of the dirty taint of Reaganism. And a Democrat legislative wing that will last to the midterms--plenty of time to get another bold initiative passed through. Single-payer? Carbon taxation? Stronger financial regulation, less loopholes on cap gains and earned interest? All this to say: go Trump go!
Playing the "Woman Card" won't help Trump long term, but at this point he wants to sue up the nomination. He is still only one foot in the mouth statement from losing a state like Indiana or under performing in California and having a brokered convention. By throwing red meat to certain voters he believes he can keep interest high. Also, I believe he wants to pick off some Bernie voters that are for anything that isn't Hilary. The general election is going to be a completely different animal. It almost always is fairly competitive.
Getting less and less competitive by the cycle, thanks to demographic changes. Dems start with 240 more or less locked up electoral votes. I can't see any way better to lock them up further than by "framing women". If I were Donald Trump, and I wanted to design a strategy to lose the general electorate I'd w**** out to the Nth degree, as he has, to Republican core beliefs. The problem is that the general electorate has been watching the entire time, perhaps more so than ever. I've talked to people who are convinced that he is utterly a racist and sexist. These are the kind of swing state voters that will make a difference--young to middle age Latinos, married women, Asian Americans. He has a few months to convince them he isn't the scarecrow they have constructed. good luck. I actually don't think he's a racist or a sexist at all (though strong women seem to trigger him for some odd reason)--I think he's whatever you want him to be. The lowest degree of narcissistic w**** who has sold EVERYTHING. Too bad he chose the wrong customers. He could flip PA, OH, IA, NH, VA and NC and still lose. And I don't understand how NC becomes more of a red state with the Latino growth rate there (ditto to a certain extent across the entire United States). Unless the polls and trendlines change significantly (which can happen, with, for example an unexpected recession or terror attack), I'm seeing him for what he is right now: a meal ticket to the progressive policies America deserves and needs.
Trump is opening up the map . Perhaps not as he intended. http://hotair.com/archives/2016/03/20/yikes-new-poll-shows-hillary-leading-trump-3836-in-utah/ Meanwhile, the whole playing offense thing? New York Latest poll has Hillary up 15 in PA, which is the closest state for Trump to swing.
even the Republicans have given up at this point. jesus. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/271044-mcconnell-preps-senators-to-run-against-trump Good luck with that: Ohio Senate - Portman vs. Strickland PPP (D) Strickland 41, Portman 40 Strickland +1 Arizona Senate - McCain vs. Kirkpatrick Merrill Poll McCain 41, Kirkpatrick 40 McCain +1 New Hampshire Senate - Ayotte vs. Hassan WMUR/UNH Ayotte 43, Hassan 42 Ayotte +1 *Mark Kirk polls not commissioned because somebody, think about the children--beating a dead horse is no fun.
Remember way back when when I said the downfall of Trump if he reaches the general election stage is his lack of nuance primarily of the general election one on one debates? I'm no fan of Hillary but the one thing she doesn't lack is nuance. She will obliterate Trump in a one on one debate. He can only go so far with "Trust me, I'll be the best at x" or "I'm going to be unpredictable with our enemies" bull**** that he has so far gotten away with. That type of rhetoric's short coming is going to be painfully obvious in a one on one debate with someone with actual knowledge and nuance to the point of cringeworthyness.
Trump should've lost every debate he has been in but he instead used them as marketing opportunities... This country doesn't elect politicians they elect personalities.
Trump got destroyed in the debates. Even more so when Rafael and Rubio tag teamed him. When people watch the highlights, the trump quips are shown. He is like Vassilis Spanoulis, you can cut 30 seconds from each NBA game where he looks like the TMac of Greece.
We don't win, Atlantic City? You have to give me a break you wouldn’t have. I have to say, look at what's all over the place. Just so you understand, we have a country, tens of thousands of people…we have no idea who it's going to be. One of the worst that i can tell you: he beats the rest of the field. We're going to make a lot of money, going to bring jobs back. Eminent domain.
Can't wait to see their ass deported. ****ing assholes http://ktla.com/2016/04/28/donald-trump-holding-rally-in-costa-mesa-thursday-evening/
There's also Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Florida. Hell even North Carolina and possibly Missouri might be in play thanks to Trump.
Unfortunately nuance in and of itself doesn't really sell to the electorate. If it did Trump, and to some degree Sanders, wouldn't be as popular. For that matter nuance is something that has bedeviled the Clintons. "That depends on what ''is" is", is an incredibly nuanced statement. What will hurt Trump in debates with Clinton I don't think is that she is the nuanced candidate or even one who can articulate what she is saying but that Trump will come off as a bully. If you look at his Republican debate performances he clearly did best when he bullies and to the extent that Bush, Rubio and Cruz tried to match up with that they've come off looking worse. Clinton though is different and one thing that has frequently happened is that her opponents have tried to bully her and in general she's come off looking better. Consider her first Senate run when Rick Lazio looked like he almost trying to physically intimidate her. She ended up winning that election in a landslide. Almost everytime she's gone before a hostile Congressional committee her poll numbers have risen. Since Sanders really got forceful against Clinton in the run up to the NY primary including the debate she has only increased her lead in the primaries.
I don't disagree with your wider point. At this point the Republican Party is facing the consequences of demographics. The party failed to modify it's positions or be more inclusive and they will likely face the consequences for a political generation.
Freedom of speech must not be a thing in Mexico <blockquote class="twitter-video" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Trump?src=hash">#Trump</a> protesters getting violent. Throwing debris at cars driving by <a href="https://t.co/sLqrI1n6Zp">pic.twitter.com/sLqrI1n6Zp</a></p>— Gina Ferazzi (@GinaFerazzi) <a href="https://twitter.com/GinaFerazzi/status/725883139311050752">April 29, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Trump was going to win California comfortably anyway but now he may end up pancaking Cruz/Kasich like in New York. That is, if they are still running June 7th.
